Dear mr. Thunderf00t, recently you have published a series of videos about melting gold in strange contraptions (or one might say «stupid setups»). This series culminated in the episode called «Will Burning Diamond Melt Gold?». I quote:

Gold melts at 1064 C, Diamond burns at 2700 C — this should be enough to melt gold, will a diamond melt gold?

Then you put a ~0.25g diamond on a 1g golden coin, ignite the diamond in the pure oxygen atmosphere and wait until the diamond burns a hole in the coin. The diamond burned happily to ashes and the coin remained intact.

This «failure» created confusion among yourself and your audience:

How so?! It burnt so HOOOOOOOT! and melted nothing...

Spoiler alert: ENERGY TRANSFER.

Given that few days before you successfully melted a bead of gold that was put in a cavity inside a burning graphite block (What a surprise that this contraption worked!), your confusion is legitimately cringeworthy.

FUCKING SHAME!!!

I want you to understand the magnitude of this shame. Mr. Thunderf00t is not only an official scientist like many imbeciles are, he has a real discovery in his portfolio which is an achievement that the Steven Hawking's portfolio lacks of. Mr. Thunderf00t is a real scientist — not a cosmologist or something — he knows his science and he is capable of conducting meaningful experiments. A man of this qualification was driven astray by the notion of temperature. So much astray, that laymen of ancient Egypt would laugh at his «gold melting» contraptions being so obviously against even the most basic common sense understanding of thermodynamics available for humans since 10 000 years ago… 20 000? Once again, pay attention, a credible scientist forgets to calculate the energy balance of his experiment before burning real diamonds.

I therefore propose to remove the notion of temperature from the middle school physics curriculum, for it is overwhelmingly confusing and marginally useful.

P.S.
make a funny experiment:
calculate «the temperature» of a 10 GEv proton, say X (note the amount of zeroes in the result)
and then ask a patented physicist: will a proton heated up to X Celcius deg melt a hole in a thin golden foil.

It doesn't mean the «energy efficiency» rating is wrongfully stated, the statement is true, regarding electrical efficiency of the device, yet the cold produced by the device is not delivered to your house as you might think. It is split unevenly between your house and the Earth's atmosphere, where less than 1/2 is delivered to you, all the rest surprisingly enough is dumped into the atmosphere, no matter how many «pluses» they print on the energy efficiency label.

Forget about «A++++» — let's do some elementary physics

This beautiful picture is not true. Well, technically it is not entirely untrue, in absolutely dry air this picture is true, for example in Atacama desert or on Mars, but chances are the atmosphere of your house contains plenty of water, which is not mentioned on the picture. When your air conditioner cools air down it cools ALL components, of which the significant part is water vapour. The water vapour concentration is limited by the air temperature, lower the temperature lower is the maximum possible water content. That creates the dew point phenomenon. If you drop the air temperature below a certain level water condenses out, and your air conditioner heat exchanger operates most certainly below the dew point, this is why water comes out from the device. ...And goes straight outdoors carrying the cold produced on your expense to the earth atmosphere. So that the correct scheme should look like this:

Please, stop chanting «A+++++»

Even if we assume 100% efficiency of the device, it simply DISPOSES OF a significant part of its END PRODUCT. Now, let's us estimate how much significant is it.

Let's assume you want to cool a room down to comfortable 24 C, in a hot day (37 c, with 68% humidity, which is a typical July day in my home town).

Thus the air initially contains 0.03 kg of water per m^3.
If we now generously assume that the air pump operates at 11 C then we only need to cool 1/2 of the room volume in order to reach 24 C. It means that the heat exchanger produces 100% humid air at 11 C, which contains 0.01 kg of water per m^3.

Thus, the heat exchanger dumps 0.02 kg of cool water per m^3 of air.
Vaporization heat of water is 2257 kJ/kg, therefore your air conditioner dumps 0.02*2257 = 45.14 kJ/m^3
Let's see how big is this number.

Specific Heat capacity of humid air in our context is about 1.034 kJ/kg/K (with insignificant variation for such a rough calculation) and the density is about 1.2 kg/m^3. Thus the «consumer value» (pardon my language) of the air conditioning is roughly: 1.034*(37-24)*1.2 = 16.13 kJ/m^3

While the actually produced work consists of cooling half of the given amount of air from 37 to 11 C plus condensing water, which amounts to: (1.034*(37-11)*1.2 + 45.14)/2 = 38.7 kJ/m^3

Of course, it is a very rough estimation, but it gives you the order of magnitude of the phenomenon. Although I tried to give a conservative estimation, feel free to directly measure your air conditioner water output in order to get the precise number — I bet it will be even worse than «60%» stated in the title.

This loss does only seem inevitable!

The sad part is that this energy is completely recyclable for no cost — all you need to do is to vaporize this water on the heat exchanger of the condenser unit — BUT NOBODY CARES.

Recently I had a conversation with a renowned CERN physicist Konstantin Toms. In this conversation, all of a sudden, he exposed himself failing to spot the difference between power and work. The conversation happened in a public place here: lj.rossia.org/users/ktoms/17248.html
it was performed in Russian, so I have to translate it for you, however, Dr. Toms is informed of this fact and is welcome to make his corrections if he has any.
Read more →